An open letter to Doctor Polly Carmichael, head of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock in London, from a colleague:

Dear Polly,

I am writing to you as a former clinician from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in Leeds. I wish to outline the concerns I had at the time of working there and the concerns that have either grown or developed since I left. I hope that you will address my concerns and also see the importance of investigating the concerns of other GIDS clinicians who have also left the service…

I think it is a problem that GIDS clinicians are making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and on their lives, potentially the rest of their lives, without a robust evidence base. GIDS clinicians tell children and families that puberty blockers/hormone blocks are “fully reversible” but the reality is no one knows what the impacts are on children’s brains so how is it possible to make this claim? It is also a problem that GIDS clinicians are afraid of raising their concerns for fear of being labelled transphobic by colleagues.

That’s three five-alarm fires right there. Clinicians making life-altering decisions about children without a robust evidence base. Clinicians saying blockers are reversible when in fact no one knows that. Clinicians being afraid to talk about any of this because of fear of the “transphobia” label.

If gangs of sex criminals were grabbing children off the street and stuffing them with puberty blockers, that would be seen as a problem, yeh? But when it’s clinicians doing it, the establishment says aren’t they marvelous and anyone who says otherwise is a transphobe.

The author herself tried to raise issues and got called transphobic for her pains. Perhaps that’s one reason she left after a year.

Since leaving GIDS I have continued to follow transgender issues online and one of the things that I have felt concerned about is seeing the bullying and intimidation for those people who raise valid concerns about children making a medical transition being called ‘transphobic’ and ‘TERFS’ on forums such as Twitter.

I am also concerned that the attempts of Tavistock & Portman professionals, including former GIDS clinicians, to voice concerns about GIDS practice do not appear to have sunk in. Polly, as I’m sure you know very well, Clinical Psychologists are not known for going to the press but several former GIDS clinicians have done so anonymously. I cannot think of another time when Clinical Psychologists have gone to the press about concerns for the welfare of the children in their service, you have to take them seriously.

But the whole thing has so much momentum behind it now.

I also strongly believe that it is GIDS duty to make it known that it is highly unlikely that any child presenting there will be told that they are not transgender. One of my biggest ethical dilemmas whilst working at GIDS was that there were parents who brought their child to GIDS anticipating that we would confirm that the child was not transgender but we are not able to tell parents that actually there is some unspoken rule that means GIDS clinicians do not tell families, “your child is not transgender”.

So…they can confirm that the child is transgender, and do life-altering things in response, but they cannot confirm that the child is not transgender. Interesting. It’s almost like those arrangements where you go to a specialist in foot massage or eyebrow manipulation or crystal embracing and you ask if those things will fix what ails you and the answer is never ever No. Why isn’t it? Because Yes means cash and No means no cash.

I urge you to look up the stories of “detransitioners” (currently mostly American and Canadian young people) who report that they were not offered differential diagnosis of their gender dysphoria and that they were either coerced into medical transition or were not mentally well enough to give informed consent. I believe it is only a matter of time before we start to hear similar stories from British young people and that there needs to be a service available to give them support.

Many of these young people talk about feeling as though they have been in a cult and that they did not have access to any information or responses other than the affirmative approach.

It’s unmistakably a cult. The bullying, the reliance on dogmatic assertion and idiot repetition, the absolute ban on the least word of doubt or concern – that’s cult world.

There are going to be way too many needlessly miserable people in the years ahead.

Great. Just great. Trump thinks it was a brilliant idea and he’s going to keep doing it because “election strategy.” We’re stuck in this hell forever, and the only thing that’s going to change is that it’s going to get worse.

President Donald Trump’s initial racist jab at a foursome of Democratic congresswomen came as a surprise — and not a pleasant one — to many of his aides, who began texting about how to defend their boss’ tweets minutes after he fired them off.

Three days later, the shock has faded and the tweet is being used to frame a long-term political strategy.

Trump views his attacks on the four congresswomen of color as an unbridled political success, people familiar with his thinking say, and plans to continue his efforts as he moves into a period of politicking.

“I’m not relishing the fight. I’m enjoying it because I have to get the word out to the American people,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. “And you have to enjoy what you do. I enjoy what I do.”

He’s not relishing it, he’s enjoying it. Got that? Also, you have to enjoy what you do; it’s the law. If what you do is screech racist insults at women, you have to enjoy it.

Despite initial queasiness from some aides at the overtly racist implications of Trump’s attacks on the minority lawmakers, most now say the President’s tactic of tying the liberal “squad” to the larger Democratic Party is a winning tactic. Many have come to his defense, declaring him correct in his view that critics of the United States should move somewhere else.

And yet, Trump has been full of criticisms of the United States for years. There are things about it he wants to change. There are things about it progressive Democrats want to change. That’s permitted. We’re allowed to want to change things about our country, and the people in charge should not be telling us to leave.

Getting serious:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt for defying congressional subpoenas related to the U.S. Census.

The measure, which passed 230-198, was a response to the Trump cabinet members’ failure to produce documents requested by House Democrats as part of an investigation into whether the administration attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census that would discriminate against racial minorities.

Which is to say, their refusal to produce documents requested by House Democrats.

Barr said Pelosi should have waited; Barr and Ross said the House was degrading the constitutional separation of powers. If they really want to talk about degradation I think they should look somewhere else.

Updating to add documents via reporter Zoe Tillman:

AG Bill Barr and Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi today appealing to her to stop the contempt vote re: the House Oversight subpoena for census-related materials https://t.co/wKtgx2vwQ7 pic.twitter.com/4t6LDIXIad

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) July 17, 2019

A civil contempt vote means the House can go to court to sue to enforce its subpoena. A criminal contempt vote means the House makes a referral to DOJ (historically the US attorney's office in DC), which then decides whether to convene a grand jury (extremely unlikely)

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) July 17, 2019

And here's Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross: "House Democrats never sought to have a productive relationship with the Trump Administration, and today’s PR stunt further demonstrates their unending quest to generate headlines instead of operating in good faith with our Department." pic.twitter.com/jasR0coqn1

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) July 17, 2019

Trump is, predictably, digging in. Game on! Let’s see how racist we can be before anyone will stop us! Yeeha!

He’s quoting a Republican senator.

…opinion, they’re Americans. Now I’m entitled to my opinion, & I just think they’re left wing cranks. They’re the reason there are directions on a shampoo bottle, & we should ignore them. The “squad” has moved the Democrat Party substantially LEFT, and…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 17, 2019

….they are destroying the Democrat Party. I’m appalled that so many of our Presidential candidates are falling all over themselves to try to agree with the four horsewomen of the apocalypse. I’m entitled to say that they’re Wack Jobs.” Louisiana Senator John Kennedy

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 17, 2019

Trump is planning to do more of this kind of thing at a rally later today.

Big Rally tonight in Greenville, North Carolina. Lots of great things to tell you about, including the fact that our Economy is the best it has ever been. Best Employment & Stock Market Numbers EVER. I’ll talk also about people who love, and hate, our Country (mostly love)! 7:PM

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 17, 2019

Son Eric is helping.

ERIC TRUMP claims on Fox & Friends that "95 percent of this country" is behind his father's message. (His approval rating is actually about half that.) pic.twitter.com/wm27V1MMLj

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 17, 2019

Feminism 101: include men.

Ahhh yes, the essential glossary of modern feminist terms, which defines feminism as an equality movement, tells you which women are evil witches, and fails to say a damn thing about the existence of male dominance. https://t.co/vMQn61irnP

— Dr. Jane Clare Jones (@janeclarejones) July 17, 2019

So, curious, I looked up the women’s department online. First sentence on the home page?

The Women’s Department exists to advocate for women and non-binary students on campus.

Bolding theirs. But…why? Why can’t a women’s department advocate for women and leave it at that? Why does it also have to advocate for “non-binary students”? What is this constant attack on women for not “including” people who aren’t women?

They have a Women’s Room. It starts well enough, even if the idea of it does make me a bit queasy.

The Women’s Room is a designated women’s safe space. Located on the first floor of Union House, the Women’s Room is an autonomous place where women can feel comfortable and safe to be themselves without having to share the space with men or undergo male scrutiny. It provides a space for women to relax, talk to each other, collaborate, organise, discuss issues or read literature/brochures without embarrassment or self-censorship. It is a non-competitive and supportive space, as well as a great place to meet and get to know amazing women!

Or not such amazing women, because just saying they’re amazing doesn’t actually mean they are. But never mind that – at least they managed to get through a whole paragraph without telling us that the Women’s Room is an autonomous place where women can feel comfortable and also they have to include male people who say they identify as female. That’s refreshing.

But of course it doesn’t last. Paragraph 2 is about the availability of a fridge, lube and condoms, and other essentials. 3 is a one sentence welcome. 4 is…

Please note: the Women’s Room is a safe space. To make sure all women are safe and comfortable in this room, please note that transphobia, racism, ableism, classism, fatphobia and misogyny are not acceptable in this space.

Interesting that “transphobia” is the first item while misogyny is the last. But also – do they mean spoken aloud transphobia? Or transphobia within. Are women who don’t agree that men become women by saying so expected to self-exclude from the Women’s Room? Is there some kind of radar that knows how to detect that particular non-agreement?

Then we get a Do Not Assume and a Do Assume. Under the latter:

1. That all women are welcomed and valued in this space, including trans women.
2. That sex workers use this space and are entitled to respect.
3. That we welcome women of faith to use this space for prayer. Please be considerate where prayer practice may require silence.
4. That we all come from different backgrounds and we all have an equal right to the freedom to be self-expressive without fear of being uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe due to one’s gender assigned at birth, cultural background, age, mental/physical ability, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, gender expression, class.
5. That every one in this room is entitled to respect on the basis of the respect they extend to other perspectives and experiences.

So, it’s an autonomous place where women can feel comfortable and safe to be themselves without having to share the space with men or undergo male scrutiny, but on the other hand trans women are welcomed in the space. Also, we all have a right to the freedom to be self-expressive without fear of being uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe due to our gender assigned at birth or gender expression. So if a woman does feel uncomfortable and unsafe due to being a woman and noticing that there’s a man in the room designate for women? She has a right to the freedom to be self-expressive, but transphobia is not welcome. How, exactly, does that work?

The House voted to censure Trump’s loathsome racist tweets.

The measure, introduced by Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., who was born in Poland, is titled “Condemning President Trump’s racist comments directed at Members of Congress.”

It unfavorably compares Trump’s comments to those of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who praised the impact of immigrants on the United States, and “strongly condemns” Trump’s language, stating that it has “legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color.”

(And that’s not even all. It’s a gruesome abuse of power, and it’s misogynist, and it’s blatant bullying and incitement.)

“This is an affront to 22 million naturalized citizens who were born in another country,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a cosponsor of the measure, said of Trump’s tweets on the floor Tuesday. “It’s an affront to the hundreds of millions of Americans who understand and love how American democracy works.”

Mitch McConnell blathered about how we all have to elevate the discourse.

Pressed when he stopped short of calling the president’s attacks racist, McConnell said, “The president is not a racist. I think the tone of all of this is not good for the country.”

In response, Ocasio-Cortez told ABC News that McConnell is “complicit in advancing racism in America” for not criticizing Trump.”

“When you tell American citizens to go back to their country … that has everything to do with race,” she said.

And when you’re a birther, and when you take out an add to demand death for black suspects, and when you say “good people on both sides,” and when you have a history of racial discrimination in housing.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Tuesday that he didn’t consider Trump’s comments to be racist, and accused Democrats of trying to play politics against Trump with the resolution on the floor.

As opposed to what Trump was doing when he told the four women to get out of the country?

Just to be clear, 193 members of the House #Republican Conference just openly supported the use of #racist language by the @potus … 193 members of Congress who are more than just #enablers, more than just #complicit, they are, themselves, #racists

— Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) July 16, 2019

On the border:

At a Border Patrol holding facility in El Paso, Texas, an agent told a Honduran family that one parent would be sent to Mexico while the other parent and their three children could stay in the United States, according to the family. The agent turned to the couple’s youngest daughter — 3-year-old Sofia, whom they call Sofi — and asked her to make a choice.

Sofi’s choice. Ironic, isn’t it. I don’t suppose the agent knew her name or knew of Sophie’s Choice.

“The agent asked her who she wanted to go with, mom or dad,” her mother, Tania, told NPR through an interpreter. “And the girl, because she is more attached to me, she said mom. But when they started to take [my husband] away, the girl started to cry. The officer said, ‘You said [you want to go] with mom.’ “

Marvelous, isn’t it? Pick out the youngest child and make her choose – so as to scar her for life.

Tania and her husband, Joseph, said they spent parts of two days last week trying to prevent the Border Patrol from separating their family. They were aided by a doctor who had examined Sofi and pleaded with agents not to separate the family, Joseph and Tania said.

But it’s our official policy to be as inhumane and cruel as possible, to discourage people from trying to escape to a better life.

Because the doctor made a huge point of it, in the end the family was allowed to stay together and they’re now with relatives in the Midwest…but Border Patrol did its best to wreck their lives.

The family fled Honduras after Tania witnessed her mother get killed. Her sister-in-law also was a witness and was later kidnapped, tortured and slain to keep her from testifying. The gang MS-13 then posted a note on the family’s door telling them they had 45 minutes to leave, Tania said. That’s when the family left to seek asylum in the U.S.

Rep. Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat whose office assisted the family in its efforts to be removed from the MPP program, said she is asking DHS to investigate allegations that the Border Patrol planned to separate the family and asked a 3-year-old girl to pick which parent she would go with.

“It’s an outrage, and it’s absolutely horrifying that a toddler would be asked to choose between two parents. It was just stunning to me. It’s one thing to read about it; it’s another thing to actually hear a parent recounting the story firsthand in their own voice,” Escobar said.

H/t Rob

It just amazes me how cheerfully some men can dismiss women’s rights without pausing for even a second to remember that other people’s rights aren’t theirs to dismiss.

I'll ignore your framing and respond to your main point. I haven't said "stand aside". I do say, essentially, that meeting what we agree are the dreadful outcomes for trans men and women requires that we *meaningfully* recognise and engage with the causes of those outcomes. /1

— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) July 16, 2019

Actually we don’t “agree are the dreadful outcomes for trans men and women.” Too much of that is just automatic-pilot hyperbole, and much of the rest is discredited claims about the numbers. No, I don’t agree that trans people have it worse than everyone else, and so much worse that we all (except men of course) have to give up our rights.

It's not good enough to respond by saying 'but women's rights'. There is (I think) a moral responsibility to engage with the data and ways to diminish its causes. And that is likely to mean less grandstanding and more careful, accretive compromise by both sides. /2

— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) July 16, 2019

“It’s not good enough to respond by saying ‘but women’s rights'”…says the man.

What do we have to do to make that good enough? Why isn’t it good enough? Why don’t our rights matter?

He doesn’t bother to say. Not his problem.

Also Kellyanne Conway: she ignored a subpoena.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Tuesday said she was “taking one for the team” by defying a House subpoena compelling her to testify on her multiple violations of the Hatch Act.

“They’re trying to silence me and take away my First Amendment rights,” she said in an interview on Fox News of her decision to skip the House Oversight hearing for which she received a subpoena to attend. “I would be happy to testify, just so we’re clear. I have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong.”

It’s not a “First Amendment right” to use your job in the White House for campaign purposes, just as it’s not a “First Amendment right” to lie under oath or to commit fraud via spam.

Last month, Conway was cited by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency that oversees Hatch Act compliance, for multiple violations of the 1939 law that prohibits government employees from participating in political speech while performing their official duties. Conway was cited for speaking in her official capacity about both the 2020 election and 2017’s special Senate election in Alabama.

…

In a letter to House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings on Monday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Conway would be skipping the hearing. The Justice Department “has advised me that Ms. Conway is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters related to her service as a senior adviser” to Trump, he told the committee.

If that’s true (which of course is disputed) then it’s example #759,365 of how “checks and balances” are a joke. Congress is supposed to be able to oversee the executive branch, so if people like Conway have absolute immunity from being questioned about violations of law, Congress can’t do the thing it’s supposed to be able to do. Checks and balances? Not that anyone can see.

Uglier again.

Here’s video, courtesy of @cspan pic.twitter.com/PNqIznSDcO

— Andrew Feinberg (@AndrewFeinberg) July 16, 2019

This clip is shorter but the audio is much better and you can hear Feinberg’s questions as well as Conway’s replies.

“What’s your ethnicity?” Kellyanne Conway asks a reporter when the reporter asks her about the intent of the president’s tweets.

“A lot of us are sick and tired of this country – of America coming last, to people who swore an oath of office.” pic.twitter.com/Tia1VUQluP

— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 16, 2019

Republicans are rushing to condemn Trump’s racism no just kidding they’re amplifying it.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) on Tuesday responded to President Donald Trump’s racist tweets by suggesting that Democrats are baby killers if they support abortion.

Non sequitur much?

At a press conference at the Capitol, Republican leaders — including Cheney — refused to condemn Trump’s tweets which suggested that four Democratic congresswomen of color should go back to their home country even though all four are American citizens.

Instead of calling the tweets racists, Cheney branded Democratic congresswomen Ilhan Omar (MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ayanna Pressley (MA) and Rashida Tlaib (MI) as “socialists.”

…

Additionally, Cheney called the Democratic congresswomen “racist.”

She asserted that the congresswomen were “wrong that any individual seat at the table is only valuable, only legitimate if that person espouses some pre-approved set of beliefs deemed appropriate based on their religion, gender or race.”

And they’ve claimed that where, exactly? Don’t let the truth slow you down.

Pro-tip: don’t be a woman. It’s dangerous.

Greek police have arrested a suspect in the murder of an American scientist who was found dead in an abandoned World War II bunker on the island of Crete last week.

The unnamed suspect is a 27-year-old Greek man who was brought in for questioning Monday and was later arrested after he “confessed his crime,” according to Maj. Gen. Constantinos Lagoudakis, director of Police General Directorate of Crete.

He murdered her why? Oh, you know, he wanted to use her, and that’s easier when they’re dead.

The suspect claimed that he spotted U.S. citizen Suzanne Eaton walking toward the Evelpidon monument during the afternoon of July 2 and, “motivated by sexual satisfaction,” hit her twice with his car to stop her, according to Eleni Papathanassiou, a spokeswoman for Crete’s police department.

The suspect claimed he put Eaton, who was apparently unconscious, in the trunk of his vehicle and drove to the bunker’s ventilation drain, where he raped her and abandoned her there, Papathanassiou said.

Now be honest: haven’t we all done that a few times?

Who was this woman a man so casually destroyed for a poke?

Eaton, a 59-year-old molecular biologist and mother of two, was attending a scientific conference held at the Orthodox Academy of Crete in northwest Crete when she vanished on July 2.

That’s who.

Can we hope she didn’t suffer?

An autopsy determined that Eaton died at noon on July 2. Her body showed signs of “a violent criminal act and possibly sexual abuse,” Lagoudakis said in his statement Tuesday. She had many broken ribs and face bones as well as multiple injuries to both hands, according to Papathanassiou’s statement.

A police source told ABC News that Eaton fought for her life when she was attacked by someone with a knife. Her body had substantial injuries from a blade that was “defensive” in nature, the source said.

All for a fuck.

Eaton was a research group leader at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany.

“We have come to know Suzanne as a lively and committed woman who made a decisive contribution to the development of our institute. Her sudden and untimely death is devastating for us all,” Michael Schroeder, director of the TU Dresden Biotechnology Center, said in a statement last week. “We will remember Suzanne as a remarkable person. We are profoundly saddened and speechless.”

She was also a professor at the Biotechnology Center of the Technical University of Dresden in Germany, known as TU Dresden.

“We were shocked to learn of the death of our dear colleague and friend, Prof. Suzanne Eaton,” Hans Muller-Steinhagen, rector of the TU Dresden, said in a statement last week. “We have lost an immensely renowned scientist and a truly outstanding human being.”

Because one random guy wanted “sexual satisfaction.”